APHC010251952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2340 OF 2025 Between:

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HAVING OFFICE AT COLLECTORATE, GREAMS ROAD, CHITTOOR, A.P., 2. T HE TAHSILDAR, NAGARI, HAVING OFFICE AT NAGARI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. P ALAMANGALA VENDAMMA, S/o.P. Narasimha Reddy, Hindu, aged

54 years, residing at Ramapuram Village, Gundrajukuppam Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondent:

1. O M R LAW FIRM The Court made the following ORDER:

The State aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2023 in I.A.No.45 of 2021 in A.S.No.____ of 2021, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

2) I.A.No.45 of 2021 was filed under Order 41 Rule 3A of CPC seeking to condone the delay of 2018 days in preferring the Appeal against the judgment and Decree dated 11.09.2015 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nagari in favour of the respondent / plaintiff in O.S.No.14 of 2007.

3) Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the revision petitions. Also heard Mr.Kanakala Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel representing M/s O.M.R.Law Firm. Perused the material on record.

4) Learned Government Pleader made submissions assailing the order under challenge, inter alia, to the effect that the learned Appellate Court went wrong in not considering the matter in a proper perspective. He submits that the learned Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that public interest is involved in the matter and in such circumstances, a liberal approach should have been adopted instead of rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. He submits that the lower Appellate Court should have seen that due to administrative reasons, the appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court could not be filed within time and in such circumstances, the learned Appellate Court should have condoned the delay. He also submits that the learned Appellate Court went wrong in discarding / not giving weight to the decisions relied on behalf of the State filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay. In so far as the present Revision Petition is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the reasons for the delay have been duly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay petition and that the delay was condoned. Making the submissions, the learned counsel urges to set aside the order under challenge and allow the application to condone the delay of 2018 days in preferring the appeal, else the State would suffer serious prejudice and irreparable loss.

5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent made submissions with reference to the averments made in the detailed counter affidavit. He submits that the order passed by the Appellate Court is well considered, contains cogent reasons, and petitioners having failed to file the appeal within the period of limitation, approached the Appellate Court with an abnormal delay of 2018 days and the appellate Court had rightly rejected the application seeking condonation of the huge delay. He also submits that in fact, even the present Revision Petition was filed with an application to condone the delay of 517 days (wrongly mentioned as 149 days), which itself discloses negligence, lack of due diligence and casual approach of the petitioners in pursuing the matter with all seriousness. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel contends that the delay in filing the Appeal was not satisfactorily explained, much less, by showing sufficient cause and therefore, the Lower Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in r